Navigation

Disclaimer

Authors are solely responsible for the content of their articles on PandasThumb.org.
Linked material is the responsibility of the party who created it. Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

For months and months, right up to February 2006, we in Ohio were told that the “critical analysis of evolution” benchmark and lesson plan wasn’t ID. ID advocates on the Ohio State Board of Education – Michael Cochran and Deborah Owens-Fink – told us that; the author of the “critical analysis” lesson plan, Bryan Leonard, told us that; the DI repeatedly trumpeted “no ID!” on its web site. No ID at all here, folks, we were assured. Perish the thought!

But in a recent Seattle Times article, Bruce Chapman, President of the Discovery Institute, was reported to have said that Ohio’s State Board of Education eliminated intelligent design when it discarded the creationist benchmark and lesson plan in February. According to the story,

Already, he [Chapman] said, an effort in Ohio to include intelligent design in school curricula failed when some state school-board members said the Dover case settled the issue. (Italics added)

“… an effort in Ohio to include intelligent design”. Well, well. Who woulda thunk it!

The DI’s Media Complaints Division took immediate umbrage. Rob Crowther complained that the reporter got it all wrong. Crowther wrote

It isn’t just the theory of intelligent design that Postman has trouble getting straight, it is the facts of what is going on in the public policy debate. He writes that:

“an effort in Ohio to include intelligent design in school curricula failed when some state school-board members said the Dover case settled the issue.”

Notice what Crowther left out in the sentence that he quoted from the story: “Already, he said,…”. The reporter didn’t say it, he reported what Chapman said – the antecedent of “he” in that sentence is Chapman.

And now, the rest of the story …

So I was curious and this morning I telephoned David Postman. chief political reporter for the Seattle Times, who wrote the story. Postman told me that he stands by the story as written, and affirmed to me that he wrote what Chapman said. Crowther is condemning Postman for what Chapman said! ‘Course, from Crowther’s post you’d never know that Postman was reporting Chapman’s remarks. Ellipses must be expensive in Seattle.

Crowther went on

No, Ohio didn’t propose intelligent design. That was NOT the issue in Ohio, as we pointed out repeatedly. The idea that Ohio (or Kansas, or anywhere other than Dover, PA) tried to insert intelligent design into the curriculum is completely false, and it stems from a clever PR scheme by Darwinists such as the NCSE. They repeatedly say that Ohio tried to put intelligent design into science classes, even when they didn’t, and they say it so often enough that it gets repeated in newspapers as if it was a fact.

Crowther apparently forgot that the original motion in the Ohio State Board of Education, made by Deborah Owens-Fink, was to teach a “two model” approach, naming evolution and intelligent design as the two models. Crowther apparently forgot that the “critical analysis of evolution” lesson plan came straight out of Wells’ Icons of Evolution and Of Pandas and People. Crowther apparently forgot that Robert Lattimer, spokesman for the Intelligent Design Network affiliate in Ohio, boasted about packing the writing committee, in the process by-passing the normal appointment procedures, and boasted about getting the phrase “intelligent design” into the benchmarks. There’s lots more that Crowther forgot, much of it covered in previous posts on PT here, here, here, and here, among other posts on PT.

As it has done several times previously in its history, the fundamentalist anti-evolution movement is responding to a crushing court loss by simply altering the presentation of its religious message to avoid whatever language it was that has just been struck down. When the Epperson case banned religious anti-evolution arguments in schools, creation “science” was born, which presented itself as scientific and *not* religious. When the Supreme Court killed creation “science” because of its reliance on Biblical literalist interpretations of Genesis, “intelligent design theory” was born, and presented itself as science that depended on *no* particular conception of a creator or designer. When the Dover case killed ID because its “alternative design theory” was inherently religious in nature, “teach the controversy” was born, which presented itself solely as “scientific criticism of evolution” and offered *no* “alternative theory” at all. From now on, instead of attempting to push “intelligent design theory” into schools, the Discovery Institute and its supporters are forced to retreat to the much weaker notion of teaching the alleged “scientific problems” with evolution instead. The new strategy drops any mention of “intelligent design” – which, IDers hope, would allow them to do an end run around the Dover decision, just as ID had been intended to do an end run around the Aguillard decision and creation “science” had been intended to do an end run around the Epperson decision. “Teach the controversy” is, in fact, just the latest attempt in a long string of BS and deception. It won’t do any better in court than ID did.

It’s almost impossible NOT to be reminded of Winston Smith waking up one morning to find that the enemy has changed, and recent history must be entirely rewritten. Suddenly everything that happened never happened, everything everyone said was never said. To be a spokesman for the DI, you need to be the kind of person who can look someone straight in the eye, deny they exist, and *believe* it. If a large enough audience is out there that wants to believe it, then this approach works every time. Orwell’s work wasn’t entirely fiction.

How dare you use their own words against the poor crea–IDiots! By using their own words, they are made to sound as if they are liars, having no concern for the truth or the higher morality that being anti-evolution confers upon a person.

Mr. Hoppe - Maybe you could call Mr. Postman back and explain in more detail the “mis-quotes” (lies) of the DI and ask him to do a follow-up expose, including the DI linkage to the Reconstructionists and their ilk… Might be a Pulitzer in it for the first mainstream reporter to break it nationaly, hint, hint, hint…

Mr. Hoppe - Maybe you could call Mr. Postman back and explain in more detail the “mis-quotes” (lies) of the DI and ask him to do a follow-up expose, including the DI linkage to the Reconstructionists and their ilk… Might be a Pulitzer in it for the first mainstream reporter to break it nationaly, hint, hint, hint…

My inference from his comments and tone of voice is that Mr. Postman is quite aware of all that.

It seems that the end is in sight. They keep sharpening the Wedge when they find that its edge isn’t yet narrow enough to work its way into public education. But surely the ‘just criticize natural selection’ approach is as narrow as it can get before it simply breaks. And to defeat it, all we have to do is insist that, if evolution must be criticized, then the criticisms must come from science itself. Since the creationists don’t publish in the scientific literature, there’s no contest.

And every other science should be criticized as well: astronomy, physics, geology, chemistry–everything. And for every one of those, there’s a “scientific” group with “indisputable proof” (or sacred Truth) that their view of the world is correct. YECs alone are ready to take on nearly every branch of modern science, especially when mixed with some of their nuttier minions, like geocentrists, flat-Earthers, Carl Baugh, Kent Hovind, ad nauseum.

We could not only insist that the criticisms come from science itself, but point out that this is already a part of all sciences. “Critical analysis” or “controversy” is a matter of business, done by experts, and done by _the_ experts. We could also point out that making a second and intrinsically worse arena for discussions that let pseudoscientific and nonsecular agendas in are contraproductive for real science.

We could not only insist that the criticisms come from science itself, but point out that this is already a part of all sciences. “Critical analysis” or “controversy” is a matter of business, done by experts, and done by _the_ experts.

We did that in Ohio. The response was effectively (though not explicitly) that they don’t want genuine scientific “critical analysis”; they want specific canards drawn from the creationist literature. On request from several Ohio Board members, we prepared a lesson plan incorporating genuine scientific questions in evolutionary biology. It fell into a black hole in the department of Education.

Lennie ,I am so proud o f you. To bad we disagree on theistic evolution .I think that natural selection is the designer ; no mind behind it is necessary.My teutonic verbiage got in the way.I have since been pelluccid ,rather than opaque in my comments.

RBH
A proposal to test the truth, sucked into a black hole?
How un-Orwellian of you.
Next you will be suggesting an honesty in public administration and other such un-Fundamentally dangerous ideas, why they may even have to make lying legal just to get around it.

But surely the ‘just criticize natural selection’ approach is as narrow as it can get before it simply breaks.

Indeed. As I’ve been saying for a while now, ID/creationism is rapidly running out of options. It tried to argue that creationism was science, and lost. It tried to argue that evolution was religion, and lost. It tried to argue that ID was science and wasn’t creationism, and lost. It tried to argue that “teach the controversy over evolution” was science, wasn’t creationism, and wasn’t ID either, and lost.

What the heck is left?

And to defeat it, all we have to do is insist that, if evolution must be criticized, then the criticisms must come from science itself.

Even worse for them, all of the much-vaunted “scientific criticisms of evolution” they offer, every single one of them without exception, are parroted word-for-word from the same tired old arguments that ID/creationists have been making for 40 years now, which were offered previously as “evidence for creationism” and “evidence for ID”, and which have already been repeatedly tossed out of court.

“Teach the controversy” *IS* nothing but ID/creation “science”, with a brand new name (but the same old arguments). Same arguments. And indeed, same people making them.

It’s why they lost in Ohio. And it’s why they’ll lose everywhere ELSE they try it.

More and more I’m seeing signs that journalists are getting clued into the fact that Intelligent Design is a collection of dishonest and/or crazy creationists.

I will point out once again that it is the Kansas folks we can thank for this. Until then, the press gave ID a free ride. But the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt, with its dog-and-pony show that presented for public spectacle a Muslim extremist kook, a couple of evasive dishonest YEC’s, an “affirmative-action-for-fundies” lunatic, and a couple of screwball board members who wanted to “pray over” the witness list, showed the press just how nutty IDers really are.

“Dover is a disaster in a sense, as a public-relations matter” said Bruce Chapman.

And since ID is only creationism in a cheap tuxedo - or just a creationist public relations exercise - then in a sense the game really is over.

Postman’s piece does a good job in demonstrating some unpleasant fallout from Dover for the DI from the religious right. The DI is finding itself under a concerted attack for failing to state unambiguously that its “intelligent designer” is none other than God almighty.

Having led the creationist pack for some while the DI is not enjoying the experience of having their hindquarters snapped at by their fellow, but supposed inferior, running dogs.

I’ve wondered for a while what the creationists were going to do once ID was obliterated. I thought it wouldn’t do to change their name and try again. Too transparent, too doomed. From the looks of that Seattle Times article it looks like some creationists are recognizing that too. I guessed that they’d come up with a True Christian Science summer school program affiliated with churches and featuring the ID bullcrap, but I don’t think that’s satisfactory. Not enough people go to church. ID was supposed to be this great way to force christianity on the rest of us, not just people who are active in churches.

I think they have no choice but to aim for a constitutional amendment to tear down separation of church and state.

I think they have no choice but to aim for a constitutional amendment to tear down separation of church and state.

But if they seriously believed that they had half a chance of pulling that off they wouldn’t be playing all these damned stupid games like creation “science” or intelligent design “theory”.

I don’t see a full frontal assault as at all likely. I think they will try to morph themselves again somehow - maybe we will see theistic evolution “science”. I have a hunch, however, that the high water mark of these idiotic games may have been reached with ID, and that the tide may begin a long slow ebb - hopefully into oblivion.

Yeah, I don’t think there’s much chance of it working, but what else can they do. I even started an AtBC to brainstorm what you’d do if you were a fundy planning the next move. Nobody had any ideas really.

I do think they have one shot, though. There are now 4 conservative catholics on the supreme court. If they get one more, they can interpret separation of church and state right out of existence. John Paul Stevens is 86…

I have a hunch, however, that the high water mark of these idiotic games may have been reached with ID

No, the high-water mark was reached with 20 years ago, with creation ‘science’. After all, the creatiokooks actually managed to pass laws (in several states, even) forcing their crap into science classrooms. The IDers were never able to manage that.

Compared to creation ‘science’, ID was an utter abject total failure.

It is not a coincidence, of course, that the creation ‘science’ period was also the high-water mark of fundie influence within state and Federal government. Today, even the Republicrats give the IDers nothing but lip service.

Yeah, I don’t think there’s much chance of it working, but what else can they do. I even started an AtBC to brainstorm what you’d do if you were a fundy planning the next move. Nobody had any ideas really.

I think they’ll attempt the “Michigian strategy”, and advocate “scientific criticism” of every damn thing they don’t like, from global warming to evolution to endangered species protection. (It helps to counter the argument, pointed out in several different court rulings, that the singling out of evolution indicates a religious motive.) Ultimately, that too will fail, and they’ll be left with nothing more than “OK, then we want you to critically examine EVERYTHING.”

I do think they have one shot, though. There are now 4 conservative catholics on the supreme court.

Catholics and fundies, of course, have never been the best of friends.

If they get one more, they can interpret separation of church and state right out of existence. John Paul Stevens is 86…

There are two problems with this strategy, though.

1. It would provoke open rebellion and utterly destroy any shred of credibility that the US government still possesses, both nationally and internationally. The world would see us as just another Taliban, and treat us accordingly. The corporados who run both the Republicrat Party and the US would not stand for it — such chaos, after all, would be very bad for business.

2. There is no indication whatsoever that anyone on the Supreme Court actually wants this to happen. They’ve had plenty of chances with plenty of other issues – they don’t need to wait for ID/creationism. Indeed, they *had* a previous chance with ID itself – and they refused to take it (they voted to refuse to hear an appeal of the Freiler v Tangapihoa “disclaimer sticker” case).

I think that if the fundies are banking on the Supreme Court, they’re in for a very rude surprise.

The fundies simply don’t have the political power that they did 20-25 years ago. The corporados run things, as they always have, and they don’t want a theocracy. It’s bad for business.

I think they’ll attempt the “Michigian strategy”, and advocate “scientific criticism” of every damn thing they don’t like, from global warming to evolution to endangered species protection. (It helps to counter the argument, pointed out in several different court rulings, that the singling out of evolution indicates a religious motive.) Ultimately, that too will fail, and they’ll be left with nothing more than “OK, then we want you to critically examine EVERYTHING.”

That move – “critically analyze everything they don’t like” – has been foreshadowed in remarks by ID pusher Deborah Owens-Fink, who in the February Ohio Board meeting remarked sotto voce that global warming could use critical analysis, too. Unfortunately my digital recorder wasn’t sensitive enough to pick that up.

That move — “critically analyze everything they don’t like” — has been foreshadowed in remarks by ID pusher Deborah Owens-Fink, who in the February Ohio Board meeting remarked sotto voce that global warming could use critical analysis, too.

By the way, anyone here who has not yet read Chris Mooney’s “The Republican War on Science” should RUN, not walk, to the nearest bookstore and buy a copy.

That move — “critically analyze everything they don’t like” — has been foreshadowed in remarks by ID pusher Deborah Owens-Fink, who in the February Ohio Board meeting remarked sotto voce that global warming could use critical analysis, too. Unfortunately my digital recorder wasn’t sensitive enough to pick that up.

Your recorder may not have picked up Owens-Fink talking about global warming, but it caught fellow thought-leader Michael Cochran’s pontifications:

I think it’s important to understand that those of us who support critical analysis, and I appreciate the words of Dr Millett, would agree, and if it comes to that, we would either do a benchmark or do something and do it all through the science curriculum. It was never intended as a device to single out evolution and it’s something that we overlooked. And so, I don’t care, I mean if we want to add it , I think Dr Owens Fink has mentioned in the past, add it to global warming, add it to any numbers of things. That would be fine. [Emphasis added]

A transcript of the Ohio Board of Education’s February debate & vote is available here

(Actually, I think that Owens-Fink’s remarks on global warming were at the January meeting.)

I see. But I was thinking nationally - perhaps there will be a difference when not adressing a group with a preset agenda.

As RBH hints, “critical analysis” may still be pushed. (Though for example Behe now seems to openly state that christian views should take precedence over scientific facts.) It would be nice to prevent that by revealing their pretense of no internal scientific criticism.

Thinking aloud about where creationists go now. Could they really try to go down the theistic evolution route? TE is where they filched their ID clothes (cheap tuxedo) from in the first place. The Roman Catholic Church has been claiming the transparent design evident in nature for a long time; Behe pushed the boat out from the shores of RC theology in the direction of “scientific” creationism.

The RCC claims that TE is compatible with ToE. They also claim that God created the human soul in a zappy kind of way once the human body had evolved. Two different orders of miracle, one instantaneous and the other more zzz than zap. Anyway, this is all supposed to be compatible with science.

So is there any scientist anywhere who says that the human soul (the human mind) has not evolved along with the brain? Is there a neuroscientific Behe out there, prepared to go public and say that there are scientific grounds for claiming that the mind, which is clearly an evolved function of an evolved brain, is not the soul?

If so the RCC would be as interested as the American creationist camp. Pure speculation but there would appear to be a natural alliance between the two camps in such a scenario.

Did he have University OK to subject his students to what can be construed as mind control false propaganda for his thesis research? Did he fill out the human subject research forms to get permission to use his students as test subjects? What did he put in the applications and forms? Did he require parent permission to experiment on their children? Did he have his lesson plan OK’d? What guidelines did his department have, and what were the limits for what he could subject his students to in the name of educational experimentation?

If this is resolution, it sounds like a case for the Thomas More center. It sounds like they made Leonard walk away from his degree if he isn’t listed as a student any longer. I wonder if they offered him the chance to start over and get all his ducks in a row.

It sounds like they made Leonard walk away from his degree if he isn’t listed as a student any longer.

I know nothing about the experimental conduct issue, but the Dean of the Bioscience college told me that he was quite welcome to reschedule his doctoral defense, with a more appropriate committee membership this time. (Which, as I recall, would have included the Dean.) Apparently he passed on that offer.

I understand that for a while Leonard was threatening a lawsuit–you may recall that it was his lawyer that obtained private emails of OSU professors and passed them on to the Creationist contingent of the Ohio School Board–and that’s probably the main reason OSU faculty and administration have been quiet about this. Any that were named in the lawsuit can’t publicly discuss matters pertaining to it. It’s pretty unlikely that Leonard would actually go forward with it–he’d lose horribly–but I have no idea how long that gag order will be in effect.

I don’t know if he would lose horribly. He could sue his thesis advisor and his committee members for leading him or allowing him to run down the garden path to bogousity. Someone could have said stop, someone could have looked at what he was trying to teach and asked some simple questions and tried to verify the material. Leonard was supposed to be a student. He was supposed to have advisors and mentors. Ohio State can’t shirk that responsibility.

Yeah, but as I understand it, he was going to sue the professors who blew the whistle on him, and possibly the university for making him change his committee. AFAIK he had no plans to admit that his “study” was a bad idea in the first place.

Remember, this is the guy who co-wrote the Creationist lesson plan for the Board, and he was teaching ID at the high school level independently of anything to do with OSU. He’s far too intimately involved with the ID agenda to turn on it at this point and pretend to be a naive student even if he wanted to.

I don’t know if he would lose horribly. He could sue his thesis advisor and his committee members for leading him or allowing him to run down the garden path to bogousity.

That would entail suing at least two and probably three creationists, since his committee was composed of Needham and DiSilvestro, both publicly self-identified with ID creationism, and his advisor who hastily removed several creationist links from his faculty web site when the Leonard affair blew up.

My assertion that Leonard might have a case would be predicated on the assumption that he was an innocent dupe. It has been established that ID the way that the ID scam artists were pushing it was just a dishonest political ploy, but that doesn’t mean that some people were not fooled by the scam. If Leonard was an unwitting participant and really believed the junk in the ID/creationist scam material, and wasn’t part of the scam group that was using ID as the Wedge, he could have recourse against his committee that should have known better.

If his committee claims that they were also scammed by the ID/creationist propaganda the University would still lose. Incompetence would play into Leonard’s favor. If some or all of the committee members were demonstrated to be part of the ID Wedge creationist scam the University would certainly lose as long as Leonard was an innocent dupe. Not only that, but Leonard was allowed to assemble an improperly organized committee (or worse the committe was chosen for him by his thesis advisor or some other University person). So if his committee pleads incompetence or ignorance he wins even if he can’t prove that they were in on some type of ID scam.

Just because Leonard believed the ID junk doesn’t mean that he wasn’t an innocent dupe. He may really have been ignorant or incompetent enough to not know any better. The University would have to prove that Leonard knew that what he was doing was bogus in order to have a good chance of winning such a suit. Students come to the University to learn, not to be manipulated into doing stupid things.